On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 23:06 +0200, neels wrote: > fyi, > > I found that _get_revision_number()'s -1 revision for added nodes > would leak at least into an error message from 'svn log'.
I wouldn't count the content of an error message as an API: I'm happy for that to change. > Checking that out I noticed that -1 is the revnum returned for > _revision_unspecified; 'svn log' in that case assumes HEAD. Probably > other callers do the same or similar things, not checking _unspecified > explicitly. It's quite common throughout Subversion to treat SVN_INVALID_REVNUM as meaning HEAD. The docs should always make it clear whether that's the case. (If they don't, they need fixing.) > The problem is that an added node returning SVN_INVALID_REVNUM for > _revision_base would look like it was _revision_unspecified. Instead, > svn_client__get_revision_number() asked for an added node's _base > should probably rather throw an error. Yes, that might be better, as it seems to be useful to keep the "INVALID means HEAD" semantic. - Julian
